Is it proven that it is technically compatible? If no then remove it. If yes then let it stay.
10 second of searching. Recent example. The Dev Server is Opening with Major Update “Ninth Wave”! — 16.03.2026 (Dev Server is CLOSED) - #554
The Dev Server is Opening with Major Update “Ninth Wave”! — 16.03.2026 (Dev Server is CLOSED) - #614
And there is no proof that Sukhoi downgraded the avionics from the 2012 Su-35 to the 2013 Su-30SM to the 2024 Su-30SM2 to the 2019 Su-30MKM.
This isn’t really an avionics issue, more so a FCS issue.
Which Su-35 since it’s first brochure in the early 2000s has been advertised with dual racks for RVV-AE (and eventually RVV-SD), while Su-30SM/MK has never been seen to be offered with them.
For me at least, that’s reasonable to say that there’s no reason to think 30SM/MK/27SM is compatible with the dual racks.
Your example falls under this:
Germany integrated extra ATGMs, and it is unknown if that was a standard for the aircraft line or something Germany did on their own.
Just because you make up a rule doesnt mean its a rule Gaijin follows. Its about the version of the Heli not where its from
Precisely. Germany integrated additional PARS for their version of the UHT, its unknown whether the French version can do the same. The same applies to the SU30SMs Pylons
Just because you make up a rule doesn’t mean its a rule Gaijin follows
That’d require them to follow their own rules in the first place.
COUGH COUGH Mi-28NM’s LOADOUTS
Su-30SM, SM2, and MKM are not older than Su-35 though.
So your comparison is a false equivalence.
The same standard does apply, but it doesn’t change the output cause Su-35 and Su-30 whatever is older than the aircraft we have in game.
It would only change things for aircraft older, or purchased prior to integration, but MKM’s 2019 and now 2025 dates are long after the integration date; and Su-30SM and SM2 are in Russian service so it’s a nothingburger there.
An example would be if F-15A had BOL pod integration in 1970 and that could then be applied to all F-15s after that date.
Thanks for those screenshots that prove the standards within my posts.
I do appreciate when others post my evidence for me.
And where exactly is it stated that age of the aircraft is relevant here? Exactly, nowhere besides your head. Must be nice to win any argument by just convincing yourself that youre correct without any evidence whatsoever.
Su-30SM, SM2, and MKM are not older than Su-35 though.
Su-30MKM with Malaysian specifications first flew in 2006, about 8 years before Su-35S entered service with the RuAF.
Speaking of, 2006 was also the first year Irbis was ever tested on an airframe.
Weird… here’s evidence:
Also, I never claimed to be correct. I am just a messenger.
Tiger UHT was integrated by allegedly German air force after France already had their Tiger helicopters.
France’s helicopters would be under whatever standard is universal to the company itself, which is allegedly the same.
Date always mattered, and you quite literally quoted Smin addressing aircraft which have different dates.
F-15A and B were made at the same time, so unless there’s proof of identical integration, they are separate start points for weapons/wiring, but they will have the same avionics suite.
I mean, we have F-15J without conformal fuel tank plumbing.
@Saprano_2132
The Su-30MKM we have in-game is specifically the 2019 upgrade package, as indicated by its cockpit and potentially some external features.
Meanwhile I’m simply claiming that I want vehicles to perform accurately to what their capabilities are able to do. If something turns out to be too OP. Simply… Remove it from the game. Simple as. Making unrealistic changes, or purposely leaving vehicles in a broken state as a form of “Balance” while pretending that you’re doing your best to make the vehicles accurate is just a spit in the eye.
All the NATO tanks shouldn’t have to deal with the turret basket issue. Nor should there be any artificial nerfing to armor performance. I just want things to be correct and it’s very strange for Gaijin to slip Russia favorable treatment. Like having your parent as a teacher giving you better grades in class but doing it on the downlow.
All I’m saying is have it accurate. It’s been an issue since the Abrams was first added to the game 8 years ago. They had 8 years to fix a bug.
Why not. And make all the pilots have realistic G loads they can sustain. No longer matches you have where you’re pulling 12Gs forever and a day.
You do realize even I recognize the Abrams was dominant in it’s release right? Lol. It honestly should’ve been held back until the Leopard 2A4 was added.
IL-2 Sturmovik. War Thunder is built a top of it, and then heavily modified. If I recall there’s still a plane or two that still uses the model from that game, the engine is technically older but Birds of Prey and Apache Air Assault were when Gaijin made it more “vehicle focused”.
Partially, not completely. They climb relatively well and they don’t suffer control stiffening, so if a zero dives on you, he can dive insanely quickly and pull out. The plane should frankly lock up pretty early as low as 340kmh. It was well documented, and pilots who fly living examples today mention that flying the Zero is a pain at any maneuver that requires speed. This has actually led to a problem of people flying Zeroes in Sim and using it as easy mode since you essentially can’t be overshot. as you can pull 13G no biggie after going almost 600kmh when IRL you would lawn dart. A lot of planes have the same issue as the zero to some varying form but the Zero is the most egregious.
It still overperforms but has more trouble now because the game isn’t as homogenous anymore like it was. J-7E is basically an F-16 at 11.3. F-8 makes up a bit, Hard to hit a phantom when you have several F-5s from different nations swirling around gunning for you (Specifically F-5Cs). You now have to fight your own aircraft. You’ll still see viggens. Which not only have better instant AoA they also have pulse doppler with essentially AIM-7E-2s.
Had a similar issue to the Mig-19 Rudder instructor bug back then.
Sort’ve. F-14 was superior. But the Phoenix’s became a point of contention. They weren’t behaving correctly, still aren’t, and people debated on taking the Sparrows over the Phoenixes. Not only that, like what we see now in the event. You could fire the AIM-7F from 15km away and the R-24 wouldn’t really take that much longer to reach you, even with a shorter burning motor because it accelerated so quickly. I saw some people prefer the AIM-7E-2 because it turned so hard off the rail and frontally there wouldn’t be that much of a difference.
It wasn’t great at launch. But it was buffed multiple times quickly and they had the R-73s at launch that were completely busted. and then replaced them with the R-27ERs because of community outcry. Even still.
the Mig-29 basically had the better missile at that point as it reached the target first before the AIM-7M Which again. The AIM-7 was great at launching at running targets but the R-27ER basically reigned supreme. So the whole missile/airframe dichotomy where the U.S. “technically” had better missiles got swapped around where the R-27ER was the better missile while the F-16 was the better airframe.
Agreed on that. Warthunder Rushed too much to the finish line and the addition of the F-16 and Mig-29 should’ve been a big stepping stone, not a bum rush to the finish.
And it needs to be fixed.
It’s main shtick was launching phoenix’s but as stated above people debated on if the phoenix’s were really that good. People just didn’t know how to notch yet. But you can look online from years ago of people dueling with the Mig-23 against the F-14 and it could hold it’s own. Also, dude. The update released around the time Top-gun Maverick came out. Of COURSE people would be playing the crap out of that plane.
The F-14 was also a nuclear reactor so a lot of people just used R-24Ts and they basically tracked from space. Oh and don’t forget, you could silently cue with IRST.
Also of course you would lose in the FGR. F-14 basically crapped on Phantoms. The Mig-23 already stomped on the throat of Phantoms. You didn’t think the F-14 would do the same?
The Su-30MKM we have in-game is specifically the 2019 upgrade package, as indicated by its cockpit and potentially some external features.
What does this 2019 package entail?
we have F-15J without conformal fuel tank plumbing.
And an F-15J with bombs and GBU-8s it’s known to not be capable of using
New computers & related equipment, as well as other things.
And yeah, F-15J is another example of the assumption from previous models being applied to future models, though technically the F-15A we have is newer than the F-15J we have, but the F-15A’s manual does showcase what is expected.
This pattern is something I recognized a few years back reading bug reports.
And because of this pattern, we require evidence of feature removal for something to be removed from a newer variant of an airframe.
No there isnt. Smin stated nowhere that age is relevant just that it needs to be possible and relevant on that specific type of aicraft. And if you actually knew what you were talking about then youd know that in the context of the screenshot Gaijin refused the GPU-5/A for the F15A and the F15C since its only shown to be undoubtedly compatible to the F15B.
So until you actually provide proof that newer versions are automatically exempt from needing proof for compatibility im just gonna assume that you yap nonsense.
New computers & related equipment, as well as other things.
How descriptive…
Anyways, trying to argue about gaijin’s flawed “logic” is worthless, they’ve already proven they don’t give a carp.
I simply wish someday I’ll get some more historical changes to the Flanker family… maybe Russian aircraft as a whole in some cases…
Because generally there isn’t any ambiguity in it.
The context is clear, as are the connectors.
It’s well known M774 cannot get through the UFP easily of a T80B, so if i am stating it cannot get through the turrer face, as well as the hull.
Aka you can penetrate the turret roof ans specific parts BAR aka apart from B the turret face , as well as the upper frontal plate…
There’s not ambiguity there. At all.
If that interpretation was true then Tornado GR4 wouldn’t have PGMs.
F-15J wouldn’t have napalm.
And more examples, aka proofs.
However, newer aircraft variants in War Thunder retain weapons of their older direct variants as a rule.
Does the rule have exceptions? Probably, but you’ll be hard pressed to find newer aircraft variants that lack relevant weapons a previous aircraft has.
I know I can’t.
As for the GBU-5 example, F-15B came from F-15A with the best possible interpretation, and with the one I mentioned prior they are “separate” variants made at the same time.
And the F-15A we have in-game came from F-15A, not F-15B.
And yes, I am lawyering, because that’s what’s required when discussing this nonsense.
And if you want my take:
I would much prefer not to have to focus on details; I would much rather these things be painted as clearly as possible.
Only relevant part in that comment, because it means that
this was utter nonsense like I said. They aren’t consistent in the slightest.
They do follow one rule however, being as inconsistent as possible.
I love how they directly go against official loading documentation for Mi-28NM…
All they do is abuse the lack of information to add things to aircraft that they can’t carry because “That’s classified” or a source simply doesn’t exist yet…
Shout out F-15C (GE), an aircraft made Post-2010s yet it has a guided bomb that hasn’t been in service with the USAF since Desert storm (iirc), but gaijin refuses to remove it since nothing “explicitly” states that it can’t use it… when it’s physically impossible for the two to ever meet irl…
If your original statement hadn’t contained any ambiguity, Panther2995 wouldn’t have interpreted it the way he did, and we wouldn’t have had this conversation.
But this seems to be getting nowhere, so we might as well end this. Unambiguously. o7
too op for now, not needed
